Patrick Bregger @Patrick_B

Message

Reviews

Steins;Gate: My Darling's Embrace (Windows)

A well executed fanservice - not more, not less

The Good
I am a fan of the Steins;Gate series despite its numerous flaws. The main reason are the characters: while they are exaggerated stereotypes, they still act like believable teenagers. After spending many hours with them in the previous games, I am always up for more.

Like Steins;Gate: Linear Bounded Phenogram, this game tells stories which are set in alternative timelines to the original storyline. The difference: all of them are about a romance between Rintaro (the protagonist) and one of his friends. Since this is a Japanese visual novel, this is a recipe for disaster, but thankfully the game chooses the comedy option for most paths and the creep factor is pretty low. Yes, all the romances are very awkward, but Rintaro is a 19-year old who still acts like a mad scientist and has never kissed a girl - something else than awkward wouldn't work.

The Bad
My Darling's Embrace inherits the biggest flaw of the original Steins;Gate: it is way too long. There are not as many completely useless scenes, but the included ones should have been edited down considerably. Unfortunately the translators also used the same unfavorable approach to editing - otherwise there wouldn't be as many translation errors, typos and bad grammar.

I disliked two of six routes: Kurisu already had a much better romance in the original game and the Luka route starts off with a questionable approach to gay romance and is boring. What I hated the most about the original game was Rintaro's mad scientist shtick. It is supposed to be funny and it has a good justification, but it still almost ruined the game for me. My Darling's Embrace features this aspect prominently in the beginning and it is downsized in most routes, but still way too much for my taste.

Even for visual novel standards, Steins;Gate has very little interactivity. There is one intersection where you choose which route to follow, but otherwise the only options are replying to mails which were sent to Rintaro's cell phone. This has no impact on the game whatsoever (except for unlocking the final route which is practically impossible without following a guide) which means 99% of the time spent with this game is spent reading.

The Bottom Line
I have mixed feelings about this game. While it is fun for all fans of Steins;Gate, there is absolutely no reason for playing it otherwise. Without experiencing the plot of the original game, you will only find mundane stories with characters you don't know and don't care about.

By Patrick Bregger on March 6, 2021

Train Station Renovation (Windows)

Relaxing, but boring

The Good
Full disclosure: this review is based on four hours of play and 5 of 15 levels beaten (100% each).

This is a very relaxing game. You spend your time cleaning up train stations: collecting litter, removing graffiti and busted objects, etc. I found it very satisfying to see how my hard work made the stations a nicer place.

The Bad
Unfortunately, soon the biggest shortcoming of the game becomes obvious: the train stations become bigger, but your work does not change and the game becomes repetitive fast.

But this does not hurt the relaxing atmosphere much; the problem are the renovation objectives. Besides cleaning up, you also have to place a number of objects (e.g. chairs, tables, decoration) in the rooms and on the platforms. While some items have enough variation (many tables, chairs and garbage bins are available), there are also many essential objects missing, for example no toilet roll holders or interesting decoration items. This means that in the end all rooms look essentially the same and can't be decorated realistically. What annoyed me most is that the developers took the time to add stupid items like Christmas decoration which should have been spent on other objects.

The second problem is that placing objects does not work well, for example you can't really see the alignment of bigger objects beforehand. It is also unimportant if the object placement makes sense: the game only counts if you used the required number of items from a certain category.

I also missed the option to renovate the outside of the train stations. When dealing with overgrown platforms, you can pick up some predefined clumps of grass, but in the end it will be still overgrown.

The Bottom Line
I had my fun for three hours, but then the repetition and the shortcomings of the renovation aspect kicked in and I became bored fast. If you, like me, received the game as part of a Humble Choice bundle, you probably should give it a chance and relax a bit. But I would advise against purchasing it separately.

By Patrick Bregger on February 24, 2021

The Corridor (Windows)

Push the Button

The Good
In The Corridor, you walk down a corridor and push a button. Then the game closes, you start it up again and repeat. Every time the game changes something in the setup and a few things it does are unexpected or even brilliant.

The Bad
In the end, this is just a 20 minute collection of short gags without significant depth. Constantly restarting the game gets annoying, but I guess that is the point.

The Bottom Line
I received the game as free bonus through Humble Choice and therefore I only invested 20 minutes of my time. Those were well spent, but actually spending money is another story. If you are content with a small collection of gags, I think you could do worse.

By Patrick Bregger on February 21, 2021

There Is No Game: Wrong Dimension (Windows)

Meta The Game

The Good
The only thing you need to know about There Is No Game: it is meta. Very, very meta. It is not like Evoland II which is a regular game with many references, but closer to The Beginner's Guide or The Hex. And it may be the best game of this kind I have ever played after Pony Island. I can't talk at all about the story without spoilers so I'll have to keep this recommendation vague. The only thing I can say is that the humor is splendid and I laughed out loud often.

While the story is clearly king, this does not mean the gameplay has been neglected. On the contrary, the puzzles are the most inventive I have seen in a long time. Again, I can't reveal anything without spoilers, but the integration of story and gameplay is fantastic. This game is full of puzzles I have never seen before and they manage to be logical and non-trivial at the same time. If you ever get stuck there is an excellent hint system which gives first vague and then more explicit hints. The controls are obviously designed for touch devices, but still work well with mouse.

The Bad
Most sections were significantly too long and a later part of the plot, let's call it a love story, was a bit silly and did not really work for me. This costs half a star in my rating, but overall it did not hamper my enjoyment much.

The Bottom Line
Everyone who likes meta video game stories should play this game. Now. You should not spoil yourself with gameplay videos or reviews - I played There Is No Game with no additional information than the promo pictures on Steam and I am glad I did.

By Patrick Bregger on February 15, 2021

Evoland II (Windows)

A blast from the past

The Good
Full disclosure: I beat the game in 2015, but this review is mostly based on an 2021 replay which was abandoned roughly around the midway mark. I am confident that the points I'll make in this review can be applied to the whole game.

Evoland II's biggest strength is its main gimmick: it includes a variety of mini-games and changing game mechanics. The majority are based on prominent games of the 8-bit and 16-bit console area and are implemented well in both technical and gameplay design. They are not only fun because of the novelty factor and the game never falls into to Retro City Rampage trap of poking fun at old game concepts by being annoying.

RCR was also a bad game because it does not know how to use references: every person you meet and every sentence they say is a stupid reference to old games without any connection to the story. I am happy to report that Evoland II does a much better job: almost every reference has a good in-game justification and they are used sparingly. The premise of the game is based on time travel through three time zones which are represented by three graphical styles: 8-bit, 16-bit and modern 3D. Despite the latter being technically underwhelming, this works very well because you can instantly recognize in which time you are.

The main gameplay loop is satisfying. It features action combat similar to the early Zelda games, although with leveling via experience points, as well as environmental puzzles (switches, using special abilities to remove obstacles) and boss fights. During the second half of the game, you gain the ability to freely travel to the other time zones at fixed points in the game world. Many things you do in a time zone have effects on the others which adds a satisfying layer to the puzzles.

The Bad
The high amount of different game mechanics and mini-games means that they are not as polished as if the developer focused on a single genre. That wouldn't be bad in itself, but most sections are way too long: in the end they become boring and repetitive because they lack depth. This approach of game design also leads to some difficulty spikes and the certainty that you will encounter at least one or two sections you'll hate.

Evoland II has a basic time travel plot which only serves the transition between the switching mechanics. This is fine; a game like this does not need a complex story. However, what it needs are either characters which know how to shut up or have something interesting to say. Evoland II fails on both fronts. Don't get me wrong, the humorous references to other games work well, but every time the game wants to convey emotions or deepen the plot it gets pathetic.

The Bottom Line
Evoland II is a recommendation for everyone who loves games on old consoles or is (like me) historically interested in them. However, everyone who wants a polished game design and is allergic to padding should probably stay away.

By Patrick Bregger on February 14, 2021

Lufia II: Rise of the Sinistrals (SNES)

My old love still holds up

The Good
I can't write about Lufia II without talking about my past: this is the first RPG I really loved. Many high-quality traditional JRPGs were released on SNES, but in Germany we only received action RPGs like Secret of Mana and the mediocre Mystic Quest Legend. You can't imagine my amazement when I played this game (I was probably 12/13): characters with personality, puzzles, varied dungeons, interesting turn-based combat - it blew my mind! To make a long story short: when reading this review, keep in mind that my judgment is very much clouded by nostalgia.

After playing it again in early 2021, I noticed that each game element has its flaws, but as a whole it works almost perfectly. Lufia II has a very good flow: no story segment and no dungeon is so long that it gets on your nerve. The game is also short: according to the in-game display it took me a little bit more than 20 hours to get through - in modern JRPGs this covers barely the prologue. This works in its favor, because otherwise the repetition (more on that later) would make it boring. However, I only played the main plot; there is a lot of side content available which can lengthen the game considerably.

The other area the game shines at are its characters: the main protagonist and his NPC colleagues have actual personalities and character development. It's not Baldur's Gate II, of course, but there is still a good amount of NPC banter to enjoy. I also appreciate that the town folks change dialogue depending on the state of the plot. Those are still mostly uninteresting one-liners, but later games such as The Legend of Heroes: Trails in the Sky will utilize this aspect in perfection. However, some character development felt not organic enough. For example (a mild mid-game spoiler follows): about a third into the game, the protagonist marries. The game does try to establish his relationship with the bride previously, but it still feels almost out of nowhere.

Most dungeons don't only feature many enemies to fight, but also have an equivalent amount of puzzles to solve. While there are a few stupid puzzles here and there and they rely a bit too much on switches, overall I appreciated the variety between combat and puzzles. I especially noticed this during the last few dungeons, which are almost exclusively combat oriented: I missed the puzzles and was almost bored. I also have to positively note the absence of random combat inside the dungeons.

The Bad
I praised the characters, but the plot is weak. It is just a standard "hero saves the world" story and the villains (with one exception) are boring, naturally evil beings. There are a few interesting elements, for example the game actually shows how the villains kill off innocent people or try to enslave all young women of a town, but those are always just local happenings.

The game progression is also too repetitive: you enter a town, learn of their problem, solve it by entering the nearest dungeon, the path to the next town is opened, repeat. Thankfully the local plots are varied and short enough that this never becomes a big problem.

The balance is a bit off. I felt a few of puzzles were unreasonably hard compared to the rest (however, this may be subjective and is an inherent problem of puzzle games) and the combat difficulty was too easy. The game has a lot of combat options: you have equipment with various abilities, you have AI controlled monsters by your side which you can build up, you have magic, you have special consumables - but I never needed to utilize them to beat the game. I did not grind and I only spent a reasonable time on character development and still almost no enemy (especially not the big bads in the end which are actually among the easiest bosses) did pose a challenge. The only difficulty are the relatively low amount of save points during dungeons, which means you need to conserve your resources.

The Bottom Line
Does Lufia II hold up against Final Fantasy VI or Chrono Trigger? No, because it does everything a little bit worse than those juggernauts. But despite its flaws, all elements of Lufia II come together and form a very enjoyable, traditional JRPG. I am confident enough to recommend it to genre fans which don't have my nostalgia filter.

By Patrick Bregger on January 31, 2021

Dry Drowning (Windows)

A good murder mystery with some problems.

The Good
The game takes place in a dystopian city state which works very well. The background lore is interesting and the oppressing atmosphere can always be felt without becoming too heavy-handed. I was also impressed by the parallels to current events in the USA at the time of this writing (early 2021) despite the game being released in 2019.

The main mystery is very captivating; I was directly hooked and wanted to know how the situations will play out. I probably don't have the whole picture because I only got one ending (more on that later), but I still feel the revelations and plot twists gave a satisfying solution. The frequent choices have a big impact on the story and - at least the ones I experienced - never feel arbitrary or unimportant.

In comparison to most other games with heavy visual novel elements, the game never becomes too long-winded. The dialogue is always on the point and the length of eight hours (for one playthrough) is exactly right for the told story.

The Bad
While the plot is good, the biggest weakness is the dialogue. I wouldn't say it is badly written, but it always feels slightly off. I am used to that feeling because I played many Japanese visual novels, but Dry Drowning is different. This is probably because it was translated from Italian.

I did not enjoy the puzzles, e.g. working out a code for opening a safe. They are easy, but don't quite fit the story and feel tacked-on. Fortunately there are only a small handful of those to be solved and the second puzzle mechanic, interrogations which work almost identical to opening memory locks in the Ace Attorney series, is fun.

Later in the game the player will learn more about the past of the protagonist and his girlfriend/assistant. I can't go into the details because of spoilers, but this part of the story did not work for me. The reasons for their past actions did not make sense and came out nowhere.

Dry Drowning lacks standard features for games with Visual Novel elements. While there is an option to automatically forward text, you can't set the speed. I would consider myself a relatively fast reader and I already had problems to keep up. If you prefer a slower pace you either will miss half of many dialogue boxes or are forced to click through every one manually. More importantly there is no option to skip already read text. This means there is no easy way to experience alternative options. Normally I would have been interested in seeing the other endings, but the lack of this option kills my motivation.

The Bottom Line
I recommend this game for everyone interested in a murder mystery with a well constructed plot and frequent choices. However, some tolerance for an imperfect English translation is a requirement for enjoyment. All in all I enjoyed Dry Drowning despite its problems.

By Patrick Bregger on January 23, 2021

Dragon Age: Inquisition (Windows)

Two steps forward, two steps back

The Good
In my review of Dragon Age II I talked much about how the repetitive environments and the small size of Kirkwall sucked my enjoyment out of the game. No one could say the same thing about Dragon Age: Inquisition: It has a multitude of huge areas which are - with a few exceptions - a joy to look at and explore. It can't be overstated how well the environments are built. In fact, even over five years after release I am hard pressed to come up with a game with better looking areas.

BioWare also resisted the urge to force the player to visit all areas - I actually believe the majority are completely optional! This works towards the feeling of not being pushed into a certain direction and - at least for other player types than myself - leaves one free to abandon unwanted tasks. The main quests, on the other hand, are linear and spectacular and therefore are a welcome diversion from exploring.

Like all BioWare RPGs, the companions play an important part. Most of them are not vital to the main story, but they have unique personalities and are fun to speak to. Except for Sera, who I did not enjoy at all with the monkey-cheese humor and puns, but your mileage may vary. However, nine companions are a few too many: when you make the rounds after a main quest, you might spend over an hour with all new conversations. I think two companions per class would have been perfectly sufficient because there are two mechanical skill directions per class. However, as with Dragon Age II, the companion quests are the highlights of the game.

The Bad
Unfortunately the big areas have a huge disadvantage: BioWare neglected to fill them with interesting content. Most have a flimsy excuse of a area main quest and otherwise just collection filler content. Because some other areas are not even interesting to look at (the Hissing Wastes, one of the two high-level areas, are an especially bad example of level design), the game would have been served better with cutting half of the areas and make more interesting content for the remaining.

The war table, one of the game's biggest advertised new mechanics, is a disappointment. The usage of real time is a free-to-play mechanic which has no place in a full price game because it leads to unnecessary disruptions (notifications of finished missions) which hurt immersion. It may even lead to the player interrupting their current occupation just to go back to the war table! At least this would be my concern if most stories weren't uninteresting and the rewards only a drop in the bucket. I played the game over the holiday season and had mostly longer playing sessions. Even after finishing all side quests, I still had not enough time to finish all war table missions before ending the main quest.

This leads to the power mechanic: besides the usual experience points, the player also earns power points which are used to unlock more areas and main quests. In my opinion, this is a poor gating mechanism: thorough players soon have more than enough power to last through the whole game while others are forced to do boring side quests in order to get to the good stuff.

I found it baffling how many inconveniences the game had which shouldn't occur in an AAA game: the UI is poor (for example, new codex entries are marked with so little contrast that they can't be easily noticed and the font is hard to read), the controls feel unpolished (the gamepad works better than mouse+keyboard, but still not perfectly) and navigating vertically is a pain because you can never tell if a slope can be jumped on or if it was treated with instant-slipping gel respectively invisible walls.

Combat is obviously supposed to be a mix between the tactical combat of Dragon Age: Origins and the action combat of DAII. Unfortunately this approach does not work very well because it combines the negative sides of both approaches without achieving their positives. At least on normal difficulty, combat is too easy to require any tactical thoughts except using the strongest abilities and healing potions; the hard enemies only take long to kill because they have a ton of health. On the other hand it misses the over-the-top effects of DAII and the characters have a less interesting character design which means it is also not very fun to look at. The tactical view does not work at all. I didn't need once and unfortunately this is a good thing: you can't zoom out enough and the cursor works like a physical character, i.e. you can't just move it over a slope, you actually have to make a detour over the walkway. It is unusable with mouse and keyboard and works only little better with gamepad.

The Bottom Line
It seems BioWare wanted to change everything people complained about in Dragon Age II, but unfortunately they went overboard. For every aspect they fixed, they broke something else. In the end, I did enjoy it more than DAII - but not as much I expected.

By Patrick Bregger on January 10, 2021

Mass Effect 3 (Windows)

Competent gameplay execution, but still a disappointing conclusion

The Good
The biggest strength of Mass Effect 3 is easy to name: is is a very fine third person shooter. Compared to the boring Whac-A-Mole combat of Mass Effect, the series has come a long way: instead of hiding behind a single peace of cover and killing enemies when they look up from their cover, the player is often forced to move because of grenades or aggressive enemies which quickly move into melee range. The previous games already had Husks, but they almost never entered combat together with other enemy types and therefore leaving cover to deal with them was not problematic. Especially the Banshees work well because they have much health, have powerful attacks and a creepy sound. Unfortunately they don't show up often and many fights - especially against Cerberus - can still become a bit stale.

The second good point is the design of the main quests. With the exception of one (boarding a ship; revealing more would be a spoiler), they have varied optical design and are short enough to not become boring. Unfortunately the caveat is that the progression of the main quest is completely linear.

And of course it is still a joy to travel with Shepard's old crew, even if the new additions to the roster fall flat. The best moments of the game are meeting previous crew-mates during side and main quests. My personal favorite is Thane's arc. The interactions with the Normandy crew were shortened: instead of fully animated conversions, there are mostly non-interactive lines either without or automatic interjections by Shepard. In my opinion this is a good change because it ensures everyone has at least one new thing to say after every mission.

The Bad
Much has been talked about the ending and many people hate it with a passion. I think it is weak and can only explain it with writers having written themselves into a corner. Otherwise nobody would come up with such a simplistic conclusion to the game's main mystery which - in contrast to the rest of the series - completely ignores all player choices. But it is certainly not worth sending death threats to the developers, especially because the main plot was always only passable.

No, in my opinion the biggest failure of ME3 is found in another direction: the side content sucks. Mass Effect's Mako sections were too time consuming and without any variety while Mass Effect 2's planet scanning was simply boring - but the war asset scanning combines both into a boring, time consuming mess. I have to admit, I just googled the locations of the assets to save some time. The planet scanning in ME2 was quickly done with because after half an hour you had everything you need for the rest of the game (it does not tell you, but that's another issue) - but here is mandatory. At least if you want to unlock the best ending without playing multiplayer.

Most side quests are also tied with the war asset scanning: Shepard overhears a conversation, finds the sought item through scanning and then returns to the person in question. This is not only boring, but also loses all narrative depth because there is no real interaction between Shepard and the quest giver. There are also some other side quests: a few good ones with old teammates and many boring ones on obviously recycled multiplayer maps.

No discussion of ME3 is complete without mentioning BioWare's atrocious DLC policy: Javek, the last surviving Prothean, was cut out of the game and sold as Day-1-DLC. BioWare claims he was developed during the time between gold master and release, but this is obviously untrue: not only is much of his content already present on the retail DVD, but his story is also deeply intertwined with the main story. Playing without Javek makes ME3 a worse game. But to be fair, about one year later BioWare also released one of my favorite DLC of all time (not counting real expansions like Blood and Wine).

The Bottom Line
When ME3 would have been released as standalone game, I don't think it would have made a big splash in the gamer community. The story and dialogue is not outstanding on its own, but as conclusion of one of the most beloved game series of all times it is definitely worth playing despite the ending. If you loved Mass Effect 2 (or the first one, I guess, even if I can't imagine why), this is a must play.

For the series as a whole, I can recommend it to players who love reading through lore items and appreciate watching great characters grow. But the plot itself is weak and the first Mass Effect is a chore to play.

By Patrick Bregger on December 19, 2020

The Legend of Heroes: Trails of Cold Steel IV - The End of Saga (PlayStation 4)

JRPG at its best

The Good
Let me start with a bold statement: The Legend of Heroes ruined JRPGs for me. During the last ten years I played my fair share of the genre and I like it, but since I started with this series in 2018, none - not even the much acclaimed Persona 5 - managed to hold my attention for longer than 20 hours.

This is due to one strength: I have never played a game with more likeable, more interesting and better written characters. Like in most JRPGs the characters tend to talk a bit too long and they repeat their points too often, but compared to the earlier games of the series this is almost no issue anymore. However, this praise does not only apply to the main characters - even the smallest NPCs without names have their own (although sometimes clichéd) personality and character arcs. After every main plot event almost every reachable NPC has new dialogue and I love doing the rounds. I assume a quarter of my playing time was spent with optional dialogue and I enjoyed every moment!

The character development and combat hits the sweet spot between not too complicated but deep enough to avoid becoming boring. The systems are almost unchanged since the first installment - Falcom only added more sub-systems over time - which is welcome because they work perfectly for me.

The Bad
The series always had pacing problems, but in this installment they are worse than ever: after an huge info-dump at the beginning, the first fourty hours are almost exclusively spent with traversing linear overland sections and dungeons. And dungeons are Falcom's big weakness: they are mostly visually uninteresting and always have a boring design. As usually the payoff is worth it, but I wished Falcom would have cut Act I down. The game is already much longer than the predecessors (it took me almost 150 hours compared to about 100 hours for Cold Steel I, II and III) so those parts were not not necessary.

The story is not as good as in the previous games: the plot twists are predicable and the conclusion of the main plot is only OK. However, the character endings and especially the credits sequence can only be described as fantastic.

I have to be a bit vague on the last point because of spoilers: you quickly assemble a huge cast of playable characters which are all known from the previous games. This is a good fan-service, but in practice I almost never used more than my usual four active characters. However, until the very end Falcom restricts the characters that can be used and often supplies guest characters which can't be customized at all. Personally I prefer a small cast like in the Crossbell arc - I never felt so close to a RPG party before.

The Bottom Line
This review is ultimately pointless: everyone who played the series before already bought Cold Steel IV on day one. And everyone else should start with Trails in the Sky or at least Trails of Cold Steel. I have to emphasize this point: there is no enjoyment to find for new players. The game is written and designed for people who played the predecessors - and they will have a blast.

By Patrick Bregger on December 7, 2020

Dragon Age II (Windows)

Wasted potential

The Good
I like the graphics a lot, especially the character re-designs. For example, in Dragon Age: Origins the Qunari just looked like regular humans with different skin, but in Dragon Age II they have a very unique look. After replaying both games in 2020, I feel the style aged much better than Origins.

The premise of the game is fantastic: The story is based in and around a single city - Kirkwall - over the course of multiple years. After each chapter there is a time leap and both the city (at least in theory) and Hawke's (the protagonist) status in the city changes over that time. The story is very personal and Hawke never saves the world, but nevertheless the main conflict may have a lasting effect on the whole continent.

However, the real star are the companions: every companions except for the DLC character Sebastian is very well written and interesting. The best quests of the game evolve around them and almost all have close ties to the main plot. The friendship/rivalry system does not work flawlessly, but it is definitely much better than the gift system in Origins.

Personally I was never a big fan of BioWare romances, but I like them in DAII because develop over time and take the companion's characters into account (however, I have to admit I only experienced two of them so far). What I like most is that BioWare has the guts to have the first close NPC companion reject Hawke's advances and follow her own love interest.

The Bad
During my 2020 replay I thought long and hard about why this game just does not work despite the good writing and premise and is even hated by many.

My conclusion: the big problem is Kirkwall. The city only consists of four very small areas (maybe a fifth of Athkatla's districts in Baldur's Gate II) and three outside areas which are fully explored after the first four hours. Afterwards they never change significantly, even after the time leaps. This means the environment and exploration is completely irrelevant and the majority of the game is spent in quests. This becomes old very quickly and is worsened by the fact that there is only one layout for each type of inside area (one cave, one temple, one warehouse etc.) which is repeated over and over again.

Unfortunately the quests can't make up for the deficiencies in environmental variety. Most quests have a very episodic feel because they mostly have no direct follow-up. For example, you may do a 10-minute-quest for a NPC and then whole thing is forgotten for multiple hours or even until the next chapter. For me this meant I never had any personal interest in the quests or the NPCs (except my companions) and did not even bother to look up which quest the next quest marker belongs to. I also have some major concerns about the resolution of the main quest, but because of spoilers I won't get into the details.

The second problem is the combat. The system is simplified compared to Origins, but this is not the problem. I enjoyed pressing the "awesome button" for a lot of explosions and nice animations, but you almost exclusively fight against trash mobs. Don't get me wrong, Origins also had way too many trash mobs, but in DAII there are maybe four interesting fights in the whole game. I also absolutely hate the wave system which just teleports more trash mobs into the fight area. This would be OK when used sparingly, but here this occurs in every single fight.

I also have a major gripe about the character system. The attribute and talent selection is fine, but you only can use armor on Hawke. This did frustrate me a lot: a third of the acquired equipment is useless because Hawke has the wrong class and you can't give it to your companions either.

The user interface is also bad. For example, in Origins you had access to all companions in the camp. Now you have to change Hawke's companions in the field in order to distribute rings and other trinkets or to level them up. You can also tell it was designed with a controller in mind, but in the PC version you can't actually use one.

The Bottom Line
Dragon Age II is a frustrating game to play because it has so much unused potential. It has so many aspects which are better executed than in Origins (companions, art design, the basic plot), but it never comes together. Normally I can overlook the flaws of a game if its strengths manage to grasp my love, but this is a case where the flaws manage to ruin the good parts.

Dragon Age II is not a bad game, but was obviously rushed through production. If BioWare had more time to dedicate to level design, quest design and plot development, it could have become the best BioWare game since Baldur's Gate II. But as it stands, it is a big disappointment, both in 2011 and 2020.

By Patrick Bregger on November 7, 2020

Thief (Windows)

Taffer stole my game and made a bad <i>Dishonored</i> knockoff instead

The Good
There are a lot of variable and detailed difficulty settings. I wish more games would offer that.

The Bad
- The level design is a joke. Did you think the levels in Thief: Deadly Shadows were small? You will be surprised. The best you'll get here are four small rooms at a time until the next chokepoint. And of course there is no free movement so we don't miss the next awesome cutscene.

I don't think I have ever encountered worse writing in a video game. Early in the game there is a cock ring conversation, but this is only the top of the iceberg. Every conversation is bad. I would bet money that this unsympathetic girl from the prologue turns out to be the predictable main villain. Garrett is no longer the man we love, a thief who only steals to survive and gets drawn in problems too big to chew - now he is a wannabe-Batman who lives in a clocktower, does not sell his loot and spouts out idiotic one-liners.
As you may remember, one of the best thing of the Thief series was the magnificent sound design. Well, say goodbye to that, here you get a non-functional turd. A few minutes before I quit I solved a (bad) puzzle while hearing the following: "SLAP ME HARD! OOOOH! YOU ARE THE BEST (one second pause) SLAP ME HARD! OOOOH! YOU ARE THE BEST (one second pause) (repeat indefinitely)." Sound plays practically no part in stealth anymore; you can drop down directly behind a guard without him noticing. With the exception of broken glass, the flooring makes no difference.
The stealth mechanics are broken. In the old games, being in pitch black meant that guards won't notice Garrett unless they directly walk into him. Now guards can randomly see Garrett in the dark. The old mechanics were probably not "realistic", but they were predictable. Now it is trial & error.
It is nice that you can disable focus and other indicators, but this does not help much. The game was obviously designed with the assumption that the player has everything turned on. By the way, I did not mind the loot glow in Deadly Shadows, but here it is ridiculous.
The city hub is awful. It is completely nonsensical and especially the lack of free jumping makes it a chore to navigate. For most side missions, the challenge is not to steal stuff, but to reach the window. Loading screens are frequent and mostly require the player to hammer the use-key.
The game rips off Dishonored at every opportunity. For example, they copy the blink mechanic and there is an exact copy of the Granny Rags character. I love Dishonored, but both series have very distinct differences. Thi4f slaps together too many elements from both which results in a mess.

The Bottom Line
Full disclosure: I am a huge fan of the original Thief trilogy and played Thi4f shortly after release. I only made it until chapter three (about 14 hours of playtime), then I could not take it anymore. I heard the game becomes even worse later and even features a bad Shalebridge Cradle knockoff level. Fortunately I missed that one.

The fact that I feel the need to write my first MobyGames review after almost six years should tell you something. I have to admit a big part of my hate is because I am a disappointed fanboy, but Thi4f is not only a bad Thief game - it is a failure on every level. Do yourself a favor, pretend Thi4f does not exist and (re-)play the original Thief trilogy and the Dishonored series instead.

By Patrick Bregger on October 10, 2020